8 Abstract Multipath routing offers several potential advantages compared to unipath in terms of resources usage, reliability and security. The idea of using several paths concurrently to send traffic towards a destination has already been explored and deployed for cost-based routing solutions, like those typically found in intra-domain routing. Nevertheless, in policy-based routing scenarios, like inter-domain routing, existing multipath solutions have not been embraced yet, mainly because of the backwards compatibility requirements with BGP and the impossibility of performing a global coordinated upgrade of the whole Internet. This work presents the design and implementation of a multipath inter-domain routing protocol that is backwards compatible with BGP and does not require any kind of inter-as coordinated deployment. The protocol supports the current policies of ASes and defines a more flexible set of path selection rules to fully exploit the multipath infrastructure of an AS. The protocol is shown to advertise multipath information consistently in regular unipath BGP updates. In addition, the protocol stability analysis is provided to characterize its behavior and which policies are supported without creating oscillations. The second part of the work presents an implementation of the protocol in a real software router using XORP. The implementation of the protocol is combined with a multipath FIB designed using CLICK in a testbed to carry out performance measurements of the protocol.

9 Chapter 1 Introduction The provision of multiple paths between two nodes has been envisioned for many years as a natural way to enhance communication networks. Once multiple paths are in place, nodes can divert traffic from failed links or split load among them, achieving fast recovery [37] and load balancing [19, 15] respectively. Those techniques should improve the reliability and the performance of the network. Recent contributions [36, 25, 27] point out that the usage of multipath routing can be advantageous in inter-domain scenarios. Since most of the ASes through the Internet already have redundant connections with their neighbors [24], by embracing multipath inter-domain routing they could benefit from a more flexible use of their resources [35]. The reachability information advertised through these redundant connections should provide ASes with multiple alternatives to route the traffic towards a destination. Those alternative paths could be used simultaneously and enable the aforementioned recovery and balance techniques. Unfortunately, in most cases the unipath nature of the Border Gateway Protocol [28] impedes making use of those multiple paths concurrently. Most ASes have no choice but to rely on techniques such as prefix deaggregation [28] or load sharing [8] to relax the constrains of BGP. Nevertheless, those techniques present their own limitations. By deaggregating prefixes, and autonomous system can handle the traffic corresponding to each sub-prefix differently and forward each split traffic flow through different ASes. In the case of load balancing, the balancing is widely used in intra-domain among equal-cost paths. Each packet, or a flow of packets (e.g. packets sharing the same origin and destination transport addresses) are routed through the available paths. However, with the current load sharing approach [7, 13, 15] used in BGP, the egress point for a certain prefix can be changed periodically in terms of minutes, but it cannot be changed for each packet or flow. The control plane of the network cannot keep up with the necessary changes since every time a packet follows an alternative path, the control plane of BGP generates a new BGP advertisement to avoid routing inconsistencies and loops. The generated churn in the network makes load balancing unfeasible. In practice, only stub ASes exploit their multihoming connections to perform load balancing among different egress ASes, given that they do not have to re-advertise BGP information. The previous example shows that ASes are keen on more flexible routing configurations. However, in spite of the potential benefits that using multipath routing can bring about in inter-domain scenarios, so far, the lack of economic incentives to replace BGP has hindered

10 10 Chapter 1 Introduction Internet-wide multipath deployments. Moreover, the latter imposes that any approach to deploy multipath inter-domain must be BGP-compatible. Aimed at hastening large-scale deployments, some backwards compatible solutions have appeared in the literature in the latest years. BGP extensions such as [18, 6] provide multipath capabilities by taking advantage of the multiple interconnections between two ASes. Those paths have the same BGP attributes, such that every selected path can be advertised with the same BGP update. Whereas the latter ensures backwards compatibility with BGP, the multipath set yielded by these solutions is rather limited, e.g. traffic cannot be forwarded across different egress ASes simultaneously even though available paths exist. An alternative to use richer sets of multiple paths (i.e. multipath sets) is forwarding packets among all available paths and advertise only one. That would require additional mechanisms to detect traffic loops [37, 25] or advertise paths that may be less attractive to legacy routers (e.g. routers advertise the longest received path [31]). Other solutions rely on a separate protocol to incrementally request or advertise additional paths [36, 32] and they can provide more flexible multipath configurations. Yet, they require that at least two neighbor ASes must coordinate to deploy that type of solutions, which represents a main drawback for those approaches. In this work, a novel protocol for multipath inter-domain routing, ASSEMBLER, is presented. ASSEMBLER stands for AS-SEt-based Multipath BLending Routing since the protocol operation resembles a mixing of paths. It is the first inter-domain routing protocol that features both, flexible multipath routing and backwards compatibility with BGP, without any kind of coordination between ASes or additional protocols. Furthermore, not only is ASSEMBLER backwards compatible with BGP, but also it adheres to its philosophy. It is able to support and map to routing policies the existing business relationships among ASes. Current routing policies, path import and export rules, and traffic engineering techniques are supported and in some cases extended. ASSEMBLER advertisements do not incur in any penalization when compared to BGP thanks to its path assembling technique and the selection process (so-called K-Best Routing Optimizer) can be locally tuned to cover a myriad of multipath configurations ranging from unequal AS path length multipath through different egress ASes to a fallback configuration that mimics exactly the BGP behaviour. This work is an original unpublished contribution that began with the early idea pointed out by Dr. Alberto Garcia-Martinez suggested in [27] of exploiting prefix aggregation to deploy multipath solutions compatible with BGP. The contribution of this work is the result of a series of discussions among the main author, the supervisor and Dr. Garcia-Martinez. The enumeration of requirements for a backwards compatible multipath inter-domain routing protocol, the evolution of the original idea to the current definition of the assembling technique, the analysis of the implications of adding the assembling technique to BGP, analysis of interoperability in mixed environments, the definition of a proof-of-concept multipath decision process, implementation of the protocol in a state-of-the-art software router and the stability analysis and resulting stability guidelines can be fully attributed to the main author. The structure of the work is as follows, after reviewing briefly BGP in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 introduces the requirements that are aimed for the protocol design. The protocol itself in presented in Chapter 4 along with an example to show the flexibility supported by ASSEM- BLER in its configurations. A group of important deployment considerations are detailed in Chapter 5. The stability of the protocol is proven and configuration guidelines to guarantee stability are given in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 presents the implementation of the protocol and

11 Introduction 11 the validation using a virtual testbed. The work is completed with a comparison between AS- SEMBLER and the existing multipath inter-domain proposals in the related work in Chapter 8 along with the conclusions and future work.

12 Chapter 2 The Border Gateway Protocol This chapter is aimed at introducing the basics of the Border Gateway Protocol used in interdomain routing. The terminology and the concepts presented in this chapter are used throughout the work to describe the multipath extensions for BGP. The Border Gateway Protocol (hereafter BGP [28]) is the de-facto standard for advertising reachability information in the Internet, where several independent organizations interconnect to create a large scale network and profit from the exchanged traffic between end-hosts. Those organizations are the so-called Internet Service Providers (i.e. ISPs). Each ISP runs one or more Autonomous Systems (i.e. AS) or domains, which are networks that hauls traffic according to an economicdriven policy. The AS networks interconnect among them and exchange traffic. When the exchanged traffic between two ASes is uneven or one of them has a better location in the network (e.g. a main provider or tier-1), it is said that they keep a transit relation, one AS plays the role of the provider, offering hauling service towards a destination to the other AS, its customer. The provider charges a per-bit rate to the customer for the coursed traffic from and to the customer network. On the other hand, when the exchanged traffic is roughly the same or both ASes are of similar importance, the two ASes have a peering relation, they both act as peers without charging each other. Hence, the fact that some paths may provide larger profit than others makes that costbased protocols such as OSPF cannot be used in this context, since the path with lowest sum of weights is not necessarily the most profitable. In inter-domain scenarios ISPs must define routing policies according to their business model, such that routers select the most profitable path for the ISP. Moreover, the advertisement of some paths may cause the ISP to incur in extra losses for carrying undesired traffic, therefore in addition to the import policy, ISPs must also define an export policy that states to which ASes a path must not be announced. The BGP standard provides the necessary mechanisms to disseminate the reachability information, techniques to implement routing policies and path attributes to enforce them. To that extent, BGP defines for each path which attributes may be used to describe the path characteristics. The attributes are used in a decision process to select the bests path according to the policy. The dissemination of reachability information happens in three different steps. Firstly, one or more neighbor ASes advertise reachability information to different border routers in the AS through external BGP (i.e. ebgp) sessions. Secondly, after the ebgp dissemination happens between ASes, the internal BGP (i.e. ibgp) redistribution takes place, such that every BGP router inside the AS is aware of the available paths learnt at different border

13 The Border Gateway Protocol 13 Ingress Filtering Decision Process RIB Egress Filtering Adj-RIB-In FIB Adj-RIB-Out Figure 2.1: BGP Process Architecture routers and the path selection becomes a distributed process, with every BGP router taking a consistent decision according to all the received announcements. The decision process carried out at each router selects the best path for that router. In some cases, a router will play the role of egress traffic point (i.e. it has learnt its most suitable paths through ebgp) and in others the routers will play the role of an intermediate node or an ingress point (i.e. their best path comes from an ibgp session). The third step consists in advertising further the decision made by each router to neighbor ASes. The regular operation of each BGP router in the AS consists in establishing and maintaining a session with other BGP routers and exchanging BGP updates with them for different prefixes. Upon the reception of an advertisement for a prefix, the BGP router receives the path to that prefix along with a set of values for the different BGP attributes such as preference values, the neighbor advertising the path and the ASes that the traffic will cross. BGP attributes are rewritten by the router depending on their scope, e.g. an attribute can be meaningful to the border router, to the entire AS, to the neighbor ASes or end-to-end. The received paths are passed from left to right through the blocks depicted in Fig.2.1 starting at the import filter, which checks that the paths are compliant to the routing policy and tags some of their attributes, such as the local preference. Afterwards, if multiple paths are available for the same prefix, the decision process is carried out to select which is the most suitable given the routing policy. Every path received from any BGP session towards the same prefix is compared with other paths for that prefix. The selection of one path or another depends on the attribute values assigned to each path. The paths are compared on different attributes following the rules defined in Table 2.1, which represents the BGP decision process [28]. The process executes rules sequentially until only one path is left within the candidate set, i.e. the winner. Then, the winner is passed onto the Routing Information Base RIB in order to be deployed in the FIB. The first decision rule (the WEIGHT attribute is typically not used) is based on the LO- CAL_PREF attribute value. The latter reflects the preference of the network administrator for a certain path or set of paths and overrides the values of other attributes since it is the first decision rule. According to the typical business relations between ASes mentioned above, the paths coming from customer ASes are preferred over paths coming from peers, since the AS relaying the traffic earns money using them. Paths from peer ASes are preferred over paths from providers since no money is either paid or received per coursed traffic. Finally, paths coming from providers are economically less attractive since that implies that the AS using them pays for the coursed traffic. These preferences are mapped to numeric integer values of

14 14 Chapter 2 The Border Gateway Protocol Table 2.1: BGP Decision Process 1.- Keep paths with highest LOCAL_PREF value 2.- Keep paths with shortest AS path 3.- Keep paths with lowest ORIGIN value 4.- For each advertising AS, select the path with lowest MED value 5.- If there is a remaining path with session TYPE eassm, delete paths with TYPE iassm 6.- Keep paths with lowest IGP cost 7.- Keep paths with lowest BGP_ID 8.- Select the path advertised from the lowest network address the LOCAL_PREF (e.g. 60 to a provider paths and 100 to customer paths). Since two paths may have the same LOCAL_PREF value, e.g. two paths coming from two different customer ASes or two path coming from the same AS but received at two different border routers, additional rules are required to decide on one path. Before analyzing the next rule, the AS_PATH concept must be introduced. The necessity of hiding connectivity information consistently to avoid the economic losses as pointed out above and the scale of the network conditioned the design of BGP to be an extension of distance vector protocols called path vector protocols. In particular for BGP, the path vector is an AS-level representation. Each AS is assigned with a unique identifier called AS Number such that each time a border router of an AS advertises a path outside its own AS, it appends the local AS Number to the path. The collection of AS Numbers of ASes crossed along the path is the value of the AS_PATH attribute. The AS_PATH is in turn formed by a collection of segments. Each segment can be either an ordered sequence of AS Numbers, called AS_SEQUENCE or an unordered set of AS Numbers delimited by braces, called AS_SETs. The AS_PATH length is computed by counting the length of each AS_SEQUENCE as the number of ASes within the sequence and the length of AS_SETs as length one. The third rule is related to the way the reachability information is generated by the first AS. If the advertisement was dynamically generated by redistributing intra-domain routing information into BGP, the ORIGIN attribute gets a lower value. Otherwise (e.g. statically configured) the ORIGIN is higher. The reason for this comes from the idea that in case something fails, a dynamic configuration will advertised that the reachability information formerly propagated is not valid anymore, whereas static configurations are not responsive to network failures. If at this point of the decision process there is more than one path available, either they come from the same AS but from different border routers or from different ASes but having the same AS_PATH length. In the former case, if the AS receives the same path through different routers (exit points), it may have to satisfy the preferences of the neighbor AS. Think for instance in the case of a customer AS advertising one path through two different BGP sessions with the same provider, the provider should respect the preferences of its customer.

15 The Border Gateway Protocol 15 To that extent, some BGP attributes are used to influence the treatment received by a path in a neighbor AS, like the multi-exit discriminator, i.e. MED. The paths coming from the same AS and not removed until here have the same LOCAL_PREF and the same AS_PATH length. Then, the advertising AS can suggest that it prefers to receive traffic over one path or another by properly setting the MED value. Rule 4 removes paths coming from the same AS that are not of minimum MED value. Another way of influencing the decision of a neighbor AS is the use of BGP Communities, which are designed to give an homogeneous treatment to the paths containing them (e.g. assign a certain LOCAL_PREF value). BGP Communities are optional attributes and not every AS support them. Typically, the actions taken over a path with a certain community are posted publicly by provider ASes such that its customer can use them. Communities used between peers are typically negotiated privately between the peers. BGP Communities are processed before the decision process is executed and they do not have an specific rule in the process, although they can influence the outcome of a certain rule by modifying the BGP attributes of a paths. After the preferences of the customers are processed taking into account the MED values, the BGP router by means of Rule 5 gives preferences to paths learned from a BGP session with a router in an external AS to paths received from an ibgp session. Otherwise, all the routers may end up selecting an internal advertisement and loops and oscillations may occur. Rule 6 perform what is known as hot-potato routing, this is if there are several alternatives compliant with the routing policy of the AS, try to course the traffic towards the closest egress point of the AS, since the traffic will stay as less time as possible and the operational costs per bit will be the lowest. Therefore, among the multiple possibilities those with the lowest internal cost are chosen. The remaining decision rules do not enforce a given preference or an optimization over the selected paths but they perform a tie-break, such that only one path is left after the decision process. Rule 7 selects the routes coming from the BGP neighbor router with the lowest BGP_ID exchanged in the BGP session establishment. If there is more than one path coming from the same neighbor router (e.g. two routers have two connections in parallel) then the path advertised from the network interface with the lowest network address is chosen, as stated in Rule 8. After the decision process, exporting rules are configured per BGP session. When the router selects a certain path, there are some BGP session through which the path must not be advertised. Regarding external connections with other BGP border routers, the router configuration usually follows export rules as defined in [10]. For instance, if a router selects and ebgp path coming from a provider AS, it must advertise that path only through customers, since the AS will pay the provider for the traffic towards that destination and the customers are paying to the AS. Otherwise, if the AS announces to the rest of its providers it pays for relaying the traffic to the advertising provider and it is charged by the rest of the providers for sending traffic to it. The case in which the AS announces the path to its peers is similar except for the fact that the AS is not charged by the peers. Paths coming from peers can be only advertised to customers for the same reason. Only paths coming from customers can be advertised to providers and peers. For ibgp, the export rules are typically simpler and the most relevant is the one that states that paths learned by means of an ibgp session must not be re-advertised through another ibgp session. Notice that paths advertised through ibgp does not add any kind of information about the hops that would be performed inside the AS, therefore there is no way

16 16 Chapter 2 The Border Gateway Protocol to detect internal loops among ibgp speakers. If the selected rule does not match any of the discarding egress filters, it can be advertised through that BGP session in a BGP update message. BGP updates contains typically multiple entries, each of them regarding a different prefix. Since BGP is designed as a unipath routing protocol, each router is expected to select and use only one path per prefix. Therefore, two advertisements regarding the same prefix are included in the same update (this should not happen in practice since the routers update the information of a prefix if it has not been advertised yet) or an update is received after another, the last information received overwrites the previous information announced by that peer. Finally, to conclude with this brief description of BGP, although internal scalability techniques such as route reflectors, route servers and confederations are not covered in this work and no multipath extensions are proposed to them, the multipath protocol proposed in this work is able to co-exists (under certain conditions) with legacy BGP routers within the same AS and interoperate with already existing multipath intra-as solutions like BGP-AddPaths [32].

17 Chapter 3 Protocol Requirements The main goal of ASSEMBLER is to provide ASes with a backwards compatible solution for inter-domain routing that enables multipath routing. In this chapter, the defining requirements for ASSEMBLER are introduced prior to describing the relevant parts of the protocol in depth. Those requirements motivate the design choices that are presented in the next chapter and provide a clear view of the main features of the protocol. The discussion addresses the issues of target multipath configurations, backwards compatible updates, stability and data plane growth. 3.1 Flexible Multipath Routing ASSEMBLER must flexibly let administrators choose the characteristics and the amount of paths used in the routing system. The multipath protocol must feature enough flexibility to concurrently select paths that, (1) have different next AS, (2) have different AS path length and (3) have different internal cost. Moreover, the protocol must be able to select a subset of the paths matching the previous conditions using a deterministic tie-break. ASSEMBLER must empower administrators with the tools to implement such a broad range of routing policies. In some cases, the administrator would like to provide a router with the whole set of paths and in other cases, administrators may prefer keeping only those with certain attributes, (e.g. shortest AS path length). The first requirement that we impose on ASSEMBLER is that regardless how the selection process of multiple paths is tuned, the BGP winner path is always included in the multipath set. In addition to the BGP winner, according to criterium (1), a router can either include paths through different egress ASes or limit the multipath set to go through the same next AS. The criterium (2) defines if equal AS length multipath (i.e. ELMP) is enabled or additional paths, longer than the shortest one, can be selected. Criterium (3) implies that internal equal cost multipath routing (i.e. ECMP) is supported and additionally, the administrator can tune how much the internal paths deviates from the hot-potato routing behaviour [30]. A strong requirement is that ASSEMBLER must allow every AS to select the type of multipath that they need independently from other ASes, i.e. without any type of coordination.

18 18 Chapter 3 Protocol Requirements 150.0/16 AS10,AS9 AS6 AS /16 AS9 AS1 R6 7{6,10,9} R8 1,7{6,10,9} R2 AS2 1,7{6,10,9} 7,9 R7 R4 AS3 7,9 1,7, /16 AS30 R5 AS4 AS5 7,9 R9 1,7, /16 AS30 Figure 3.1: Model of a transit AS with Path ASSEMBLER Routers 3.2 BGP-Compatible Advertising Scheme ASes advertise each other reachability information by means of BGP updates. Whereas processing regular BGP updates should not present any shortcoming for multipath routers, advertising multiple paths per network prefix in a single BGP update is not a trifle. Multipath routers should respect the structure and the semantic of the attributes included in the updates, such that legacy routers can keep on processing them. Concatenating multiple paths to the BGP message is not enough, provided that the update of a path has implicit the withdrawn of previous updates. Therefore, ASSEMBLER must carry out some additional processing to merge information from multiple paths and accommodate them into regular BGP updates. To that extent, path assembling (Section 4.2), a particular case of prefix aggregation [28] seems an outstanding candidate. It is a crucial requirement that generated advertisements must be representative of the aggregated paths, such that a router (legacy or not) can perform any regular BGP processing over the advertisement, as if the paths were announced separately. For instance, when a router receives an announcement containing an aggregate of paths, it must be able to derive the local preference for the aggregate or apply MED values comparison consistently. The protocol must identify those cases in which the advertisements are not representative and do not perform aggregation. Even for BGP, RFC4271 [28] identifies different situations where it is not consistent to aggregate multiple prefixes due to conflicting attributes. Thus, the protocol must avoid those situations in which inconsistent network advertisements may be created as a consequence of the aggregation process. 3.3 Controlled Routing Table Growth The design must address the well known problem of the inter-domain routing table growth. Whereas routers feature more processing and memory capacity at the control plane, the situation at the data-forwarding plane is completely different. The hardware that forwards packets at wire-speed is expensive and its storage space constrained. The adoption of multipath does

19 3.4. Stable under Common Configurations 19 nothing but worsening the problem as multiple next-hops are stored per prefix. A growth in the amount of paths selected can potentially rise issues with the limitations of the data plane. Therefore, the protocol must be aware of those constrains and must limit the amount of paths relayed to the data plane. The requirement for the protocol is to be able to select a subset of k-best paths per prefix, such that the size of each routing table entry is limited. Every path in the subset must be compliant with the routing policy and the k-best tie-break must be deterministic. 3.4 Stable under Common Configurations BGP has been proven to be unstable under conflicting routing policies. The existing relation among those routing policies that cannot be fulfilled simultaneously is calleddispute-wheel [12]. In presence of dispute-wheels BGP is not guaranteed to converge and the network may end up in a permanent oscillation. Permanent oscillations do not happen often in practice since routing policies are typically overruled by the business relationships among ASes. It can be proven that when routing policies align with those relationships dispute-wheels cannot be created. The work in [5] presents a more abstract framework for the analysis of the stability in policy-based routing protocols. The framework extends the concept of dispute-wheels to reflexive policy relations. The concept of reflexive relations is more powerful in the sense that it covers the BGP dispute-wheels and allows to extent stability results to multipath policybased routing protocols. ASSEMBLER must be able to converge in absence of reflexive relations among policies. Relaying on the abstract framework in [5], the protocol must be proven stable in those situations in which conflicting policies do not exists, specially in those that align with business relations among ASes.

20 Chapter 4 Path ASSEMBLER ASSEMBLER is a novel multipath inter-domain routing protocol inspired in the BGP prefix aggregation to compact the multipath information. ASSEMBLER stands for AS-Set-based Multipath BLEnding Routing, since the protocol blends the additional AS_PATHs and stores the result in AS_SETs. ASSEMBLER keeps backwards compatibility and allows for a progressive deployment of multipath-capable routers. The specification of ASSEMBLER relies on two main cornerstones: a multipath selection process and a BGP-compatible multipath advertising scheme. Fig.4.1 shows the block diagram of an ASSEMBLER process running in the control plane of a router. There are some differences between Fig.4.1 and a BGP process diagram (see Fig.2.1). The import policy (ingress filteringin Fig.4.1) is applied first, like in BGP. The BGP decision process has been replaced by the multipath selection algorithm K-BESTRO (pronounced cabestro) that stands for K-Best Routes Optimizer. K-BESTRO is presented in detail in Section 4.1. The output of the K-BESTRO block is a set of K paths instead of a single winner path. K-BESTRO features three parameters to tune the characteristics of the multipath set. The parameter ELMP defines the maximum difference in AS path length between the shortest and the longest AS path. ECMP defines the difference in internal cost among selected paths. Finally, the KBEST parameter limits the maximum size of the multipath set, which should be set depending on the capacity of the routing table to store prefixes with multiple next-hops. The paths in the multipath set are passed to the RIB in order to be installed in the data plane (through the FIB). Afterwards, they undergo the export policy. The export policy (egress filtering) generates the same advertisement for all the peering sessions that the router maintains. Therefore, a neighbor is either advertised or the export policy discards the whole multipath set as soon as one path matches a filter. Otherwise, different paths could be discarded for each peering session, generating different advertisements. Adding neighborspecific announcements [34] is out of the scope of this paper. Next to the egress filtering block, there is the new block called Assembling, which is responsible for generating the advertisements. The assembling algorithm ensures backwards compatibility, creating special BGP announcements that can be processed by legacy routers, do not incur in penalization when competing with regular unipath BGP announcements in the selection process and allow multipath capable ASes to use several paths concurrently. The algorithm takes its name from the way of constructing those announcements that resembles an

Border Gateway Protocol Exterior routing protocols created to: control the expansion of routing tables provide a structured view of the Internet by segregating routing domains into separate administrations

Module 7 Routing and Congestion Control Lesson 4 Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Specific Instructional Objectives On completion of this lesson, the students will be able to: Explain the operation of the

Interdomain traffic engineering with BGP B. Quoitin, S. Uhlig, C. Pelsser, L. Swinnen and O. Bonaventure Abstract Traffic engineering is performed by means of a set of techniques that can be used to better

Policy Based QoS support using BGP Routing Priyadarsi Nanda and Andrew James Simmonds Department of Computer Systems Faculty of Information Technology University of Technology, Sydney Broadway, NSW Australia

Interdomain traffic engineering with BGP B. Quoitin, S. Uhlig, C. Pelsser, L. Swinnen and O. Bonaventure Abstract Traffic engineering is performed by means of a set of techniques that can be used to better

DD2491 p1 2008 Load balancing BGP Johan Nicklasson KTHNOC/NADA Dual home When do you need to be dual homed? How should you be dual homed? Same provider. Different providers. What do you need to have in

1 2 3 4 -Lower yellow line is graduate student enrollment -Red line is undergradate enrollment -Green line is total enrollment -2008 numbers are projected to be near 20,000 (on-campus) not including distance

The ISP Column An occasional column on things Internet May 2006 Geoff Huston An Introduction to BGP the Protocol Routing in the Internet is divided into two parts fine-grained topological detail of connected

LAB 8 BGP: Border Gateway Protocol An Interdomain Routing Protocol OBJECTIVES The objective of this lab is to simulate and study the basic features of an interdomain routing protocol called Border Gateway

Module 12 Multihoming to the Same ISP Objective: To investigate various methods for multihoming onto the same upstream s backbone Prerequisites: Module 11 and Multihoming Presentation The following will

BGP4 Case Studies/Tutorial Sam Halabi-cisco Systems The purpose of this paper is to introduce the reader to the latest in BGP4 terminology and design issues. It is targeted to the novice as well as the

Transitioning to BGP ISP Workshops Last updated 24 April 2013 1 Scaling the network How to get out of carrying all prefixes in IGP 2 Why use BGP rather than IGP? p IGP has Limitations: n The more routing

basic BGP in Huawei CLI BGP stands for Border Gateway Protocol. It is widely used among Internet Service Providers to make core routing decisions on the Internet. The current BGP version is BGP-4 defined

BGP Diverse Path Using a Diverse-Path Route Reflector The feature allows Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to distribute an alternative path other than the best path between BGP speakers when route reflectors

A Study of the interaction of BGP/OSPF in Zebra/ZebOS/Quagga Avinash Ramanath avinash_ramanath@hotmail.com ABSTRACT Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) allows an autonomous system to maintain connectivity with